By Gordon Lubold with Nathaniel Sobel

POTUS weighs sending Special Forces to Iraq. As more Marines go to help in

Baghdad and the U.S. weighs options for countering the deepening crisis in Iraq -
but not putting "boots on the ground" into combat - there is also talk of using
Special Forces troops, not as combat troops, but as advisers. The AP's Lara
Jakes and Julie Pace:"The White House is considering sending a small number of
American Special Forces soldiers to Iraq in an urgent attempt to help the
government in Baghdad slow the nation's rampant Sunni insurgency, U.S. officials
said Monday. While President Obama has explicitly ruled out putting U.S. troops
into direct combat in Iraq, the plan under consideration suggests he would be
willing to send Americans into a collapsing security situation for training and other
purposes.

"Three U.S. officials familiar with ongoing discussions said the potential of
sending Special Forces to Iraq is high on a list of military options that are being
considered. It's not clear how quickly the Special Forces could arrive in Iraq. It's
also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation's
north, where the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has
overrun several cities in the worst threat to the Shiite-led government since U.S.
troops left in 2011.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden in a statement: "The president was
very clear that we will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq...That
remains the case and he has asked his national security team to prepare a range of
other options that could help support Iraqi security forces."

"...The mission almost certainly would be small: one U.S. official said it could be
up to 100 Special Forces soldiers. It also could be authorized only as an advising
and training mission - meaning the soldiers would work closely with Iraqi forces
that are fighting the insurgency but not officially be considered as combat troops.

"The troops would fall under the authority of the U.S. ambassador and would not
be authorized to engage in combat, another U.S. official said. Their mission is 'non-
operational training' of both regular and counter terrorism units, which the
military has interpreted to mean training on military bases, not in the field, the
official said.

"...The White House also is considering launching air strikes and increased
surveillance over insurgent bastions to thwart ISIL's march toward Baghdad after
capturing the Sunni-dominated cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit. The insurgency
also has overrun smaller towns between Baghdad and the Syrian border, including

on Monday the northwest city of Tal Afar." More here.

The U.S. and Iran signal willingness for a joint effort in Iraq. The NYT's
Rick Gladstone, Thomas Erdbrink and Michael Gordon: "The United States and Iran
on Monday signaled increased willingness to work together to arrest the expanding
Sunni insurgency in Iraq, with Secretary of State John Kerry openly suggesting
such a collaboration would be constructive and another American official saying
the subject could come up at talks this week on the Iranian nuclear
dispute." More here.

Meantime, from bank heists to extortion and kidnapping, ISIS is using mob
tactics to fund its own attacks - which means it's a militant group with built-
in sustainability. FP's Yochi Dreazen: "When fighters from the Islamic State of
Syria and al-Sham stole tens of millions of dollars from a bank in Mosul earlier this
year, it wasn't simply a startling symbol of the collapse of Baghdad's control over
Iraq's second-largest city. The brazen theft was instead a stark illustration of one
of the most alarming aspects of ISIS's rise: the group's growing ability to fund
its own operations through bank heists, extortion, kidnappings and other tactics
more commonly associated with the mob than with violent Islamist extremists.

"In its early years ISIS -- like the Taliban and other Sunni militants -- received
most of its funding from wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and other Persian Gulf
countries. Extremists in those U.S. ally states continue to send money to ISIS, but
American counterterrorism officials believe that the group now finances the bulk
of its recruitment, weapons purchases, and attacks without outside help. Even if
the U.S. and its allies somehow stopped the flow of money from the Persian Gulf to
the battlefields of Iraq and Syria, in other words, it would be too late to prevent
ISIS from banking enough money to fight on for years.

A U.S. counter-terrorism official: "The overwhelming majority of their money
comes from criminal activities like bank heists, extortion, robberies and
smuggling... They're getting some money from outside donors, but that pales in
comparison to their self-funding."

"The exact amount of money in ISIS's possession is the subject of intense
debate among Western intelligence officials. At the high end, some analysts
estimate that the group may have access to at least $500 million in cash drawn
from bank robberies, oil smuggling, and old-fashioned extortion and protection
rackets. Other analysts believe the number is far lower, with one official putting it
at between $100 million and $200 million. Those numbers are moving higher as the
group conquers more cities on its seemingly inexorable drive toward Baghdad and is
able to loot the local private and government banks. On Monday, ISIS
fighters took the strategically important town of Tal Afar, adding to the territory
under its direct control." More here.

Though ISIS is known for its brutal rule in Syria, many residents of the Iraqi
city it just captured are so hostile to the Shia-led government in Baghdad, they
have welcomed the group. Andrew Slater for the Daily Beast, here.

J.M. Berger for the Atlantic on ISIS' sophisticated social-media
strategy, here.

Air strikes carry inherent risk, of course. But the U.S. must tread particularly
carefully as the White House ponders using them against ISIS in
Iraq. Bloomberg's Tony Capaccio: "...for all the available firepower of U.S.
planes and missiles, with an aircraft carrier already in the Persian Gulf, airstrikes
risk civilian casualties and may not be enough to defeat an irregular enemy moving
through densely populated areas, defense analysts and administration officials
said. 'One needs to be very careful about the downsides,' said Eric Edelman, a
former Pentagon undersecretary for policy in President George W. Bush's
administration. Airstrikes 'to be effective will require some kind of U.S. presence
on the ground" to discern militant targets from civilians.' More here.

Marines have arrived at the U.S. Embassy compound in Iraq. Military Times'
Gina Harkins and Andrew Tilghman: "The Pentagon has deployed about 100 troops -
including more than 50 Marines attached to a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team
to the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, Iraq, to help protect diplomatic
personnel and property... The arrival of FAST Marines and a contingent of U.S.
soldiers on the ground in Iraq on Sunday marked the first operational deployment
of U.S. troops there since the withdrawal of combat forces in December 2011.
Pentagon officials declined to identify the Army unit deployed to Baghdad. The
Marine platoon is based out of nearby Bahrain, and is tasked with protecting
American personnel and property, said Master Sgt. William Price, a spokesman for
Marine Corps Forces Central Command.

Pentagon Pressec Rear Adm. John Kirby said yesterday: "This is a temporary
thing... There is no intention that this is any kind of permanent plus up. They are
there temporarily, to assist with some relocation of some personnel who work at
the embassy. They are not engaged in ferrying to and fro anyone. No military
aircraft ... is being used to ferry these folks."

The U.S. doesn't know what to hit in Iraq. The Daily Beast's Eli
Lake: "...Current and retired American defense and intelligence officials tell The
Daily Beast that the CIA and the Pentagon are not certain who exactly makes up
the forces that have taken so much of Iraq. Moreover, these intelligence and
defense officials says that they believe that some of the people fighting with
Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are former U.S. allies who could be
turned against the hard-core fanatics-if they can be identified." Morehere.

What Iran's Foreign Minister told Robin Wright on the phone sounds a lot like
what Obama said on Friday about Iraq. USIP's Robin Wright for the New
Yorker's blog: "For both [Washington and Tehran], their longtime strategies
toward Iraq appear to be failing, as a few thousand thugs in the Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria (ISIS) burn their way across the country. Washington and Tehran
have started using the same language." More here.

Democracy For America, formed out of Howard Dean's 2004 anti-Iraq war
presidential campaign, believes a bipartisan group of lawmakers could stop
intervention in Iraq by Buzzfeed's Evan McMorris-Santoro, here.

The U.K. will reopen its embassy in Tehran. Reuters this morning: "British
Foreign Secretary William Hague said Tuesday that 'circumstances are right' to
reopen Britain's embassy in Iran, which was closed in 2011 after hard-liners
overran the building and ransacked it. The announcement represents another step
in the thaw in recent days between Iran and the West. American officials are also
looking for common ground with Iran as they seek ways to quell mounting violence
in Iraq." More here.

And what the Pentagon said about cooperating with the Iranians in
Iraq. Reuters' Missy Ryan and Phil Stewart: "U.S. officials may hold discussions
with Iran about Iraq's security crisis on the sidelines of nuclear talks this week,
but Washington will not coordinate potential military action in Iraq with its
longtime adversary Tehran, the Pentagon said on Monday.

Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby on the upcoming nuclear
talks: "It's possible that on the sidelines of those discussions there could be
discussions surrounding the situation in Iraq."

He added: "But there is absolutely no intention and no plan to coordinate military
activity between the United States and Iran ... there are no plans to have
consultations with Iran about military activities in Iraq." More here.

How did we get here, anyway? Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq Jim Jeffrey
takes that and other questions from War on the Rocks' Ryan Evans, here.

Welcome to Tuesday's edition of Report. If you'd like to sign up to receive
Situation Report, send us a note at gordon.lubold@foreignpolicy.com and we'll just
stick you on. Like what you see? Tell a friend. And if you have a report you want
teased, a piece of news, or a good tidbit, send it to us early for maximum
tease, because if you seesomething, we hope you'll say something -- to Situation
Report. Follow us: @glubold and @njsobe4.

FP Exclusive: In another part of the world, the U.S. is funding U.N.
peacekeepers - to help protect Chinese oil projects. FP's own Colum Lynch has
this exclusive tale ahead of a big meeting at the U.N. this morning detailing how
the U.S. is essentially paying to protect Chinese investment in South
Sudan. Lynch: "For years, American administrations have embraced U.N.
peacekeeping as a cost-effective alternative to U.S. military intervention, a policy
that has allowed Washington to harness the power and purse of foreign
governments to promote America's security and humanitarian interests abroad.

"...In South Sudan, the investment is indeed paying dividends -- for
China. Last month, Beijing quietly secured a deal that will put the U.N.'s famed
blue helmets to work protecting workers in South Sudan's oil installations, where
China has invested billions of dollars over the years and holds a major financial
stake -- at least 40 percent -- in South Sudan's largest oil field. American
taxpayers, who fund about 27 percent of the cost of U.N. peacekeeping missions,
will effectively be helping to shoulder the financial burden of securing China's
investment.

"The unprecedented arrangement was hammered out last month in closed-door
negotiations -- which have not been previously detailed -- over how to bolster the
U.N. Mission in South Sudan, or UNMISS, so it could better protect hundreds of
thousands of civilians from ethnic cleansing. The beefed-up mission will include
thousands of additional troops from African countries as well as hundreds more
from China."

David Deng, a researcher for the South Sudan Law Society: "The U.N. is
walking a thin line between neutral peacekeeper and proxy military force for the
government of South Sudan... For the U.N. to protect oil facilities would clearly be
a huge strategic advantage for the government and cannot be seen as consistent
with the role of a neutral peacekeeping force." More here.

Al-Shabab is blamed for a deadly attack on a hotel on Kenya's coast that
killed almost 50. One of the survivors described the carnage to the Daily
Beast's Margot Kiser, here.

Lippert's big day: Hagel Chief of Staff Mark Lippert, nom'ed to go to South
Korea as ambassador, appears before Senate Foreign Relations Committee
today.Lippert, who is passionate about Asia and is considered by many to be one of
the administration's best experts on Asia policy, appears before the Committee
today as the Senate weighs his nomination to go to Seoul. He'll likely get a question
or two about the Pentagon's role in the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and perhaps
his views on Iraq. It's at 3pm today.
The Navy talks strategy in Newport today. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon
Greenert is expected to speak today, 8:40 a.m., at the Current Strategy Forum at
Naval War College. The two-day forum brings together a bunch of top thinkers,
VIPs and students to "explore issues of strategic national importance." This year's
theme is "American Grand Strategy and Sea Power: Challenges and Choices," and it
will focus on challenging assumptions and undertaking a strategic assessment of
the future. Three panel discussions; "On Strategy," "Future Challenges," and "Sea
Power and Maritime Strategy," that will be held over the course of the two-day
event, and Greenert will give the opening keynote address.
From the Navy: "The Current Strategy Forum brings together preeminent naval
strategists, scholars, authors, and leaders to discuss and debate the challenges
that face our service and our nation now and in the future. This event underscores
and reinvigorates the formulation of maritime strategy," Rear Adm. James Foggo
III, Assistant Deputy CNO (Operations, Plans, and Strategy).
In addition to Greenert, who else is speaking? Professor Sir Lawrence
Freedman of King's College London; Robert Kaplan, Chief Geopolitical Analyst for
Stratfor and Author of the 2014 book 'Asia's Cauldron: The South China Sea and
the End of a Stable Pacific; Peter Singer of Brookings and Professor Geoffrey Till,
King's College London.
Who else is attending? Vice Admiral John Currier, U.S. Coast Guard; Rear
Admiral James G. Foggo III, U.S. Navy, Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations for Operations, Plans, and Strategy; Rear Admiral Walter Carter, U.S.
Navy, President, U.S. Naval War College. What's the agenda? Click right here for
that. I wanna watch! Then click here to do that.
Kenneth Dahl, an Army two-star, will investigate the Bergdahl matter. The
Army issued a statement yesterday that Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl, "an Army officer
with Afghanistan combat experience," will lead the investigation into Sgt. Bowe
Bergdahl's disappearance from a combat outpost in eastern Afghanistan in
2009. From the Army:"...The primary function of this investigation, as in any
other investigation, is to ascertain facts and report them to the appointing
authority. These types of investigations are not uncommon and serve to establish
the facts on the ground following an incident. The investigating officer will have
access to previously gathered documentary evidence, including the 2009
investigation. The Army's top priority remains Sgt. Bergdahl's health and
reintegration. We ask that everyone respect the time and privacy necessary to
accomplish the objectives of the last phase of reintegration. The investigating
officer will not interview Sgt. Bergdahl until the reintegration team clears such
interaction, so no timeline for completion of the investigation has been set."
As the war ends, the military cuts its enlistment goals. The Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review's Brian Bowling via Stripes: "...With budget cuts, the Iraq war
ending and reduction of forces in Afghanistan, the Army and other branches of
the military need fewer people. Since 2003, enlistment goals for most active and
reserve branches dropped between 18 and 35 percent. The Navy Reserve cut its
recruiting goals by 66 percent. 'Everybody does more with less,' said Master Chief
Aaron Smith. Like any organization, the Navy needs to find people qualified for
jobs it must perform, and more of its people re-enlist to do those jobs - further
cutting the number of openings. 'It used to be a lot of people could get in,' said
Smith, assistant recruiting chief for the Navy's Pittsburgh recruiting district.
'We just don't have the job availability.' Locally, the Air Force Reserve has had
fewer applicants and fewer of them qualifying, said Master Sgt. Dawn Serakowski,
a recruiter stationed in Moon." More here.
Moscow's cancellation of natural gas exports to Kiev ratchets up the pressure
on Ukraine - and is making European leaders nervous about energy
supplies.FP's Keith Johnson: "With tensions between Russia and Ukraine at fever
pitch, Moscow unsheathed its energy weapon Monday, cutting off natural-gas
supplies to Ukraine amidst a dispute over billions of dollars in unpaid bills. The gas
cutoff, Russia's third in less than a decade, raises concern in Europe that one of
its main sources of imported energy could be affected, with few realistic
alternatives on the horizon. A last-ditch effort by the European Union to broker a
compromise between Russia and Ukraine broke down Sunday night. Monday
morning, Gazprom, the big Russian gas firm, said it halted gas flows to Ukraine and
that it won't ship any more until Kiev pays its hefty arrears and then prepays
thereafter. Gazprom said that Ukraine was guilty of 'persistent nonpayment,' and
said Kiev owes it about $4.5 billion. Russian officials said they would only be willing
to go back to negotiations if Ukraine settles its outstanding debt. Russian Prime
Minister Dmitry Medvedev blamed Ukraine for the crisis after it rejected 'very
beneficial, very preferential proposals' from Gazprom." More here.
In a new article for Foreign Affairs, Stimson's Russell Rumbaugh and Barry
Blechman make the case for phasing out the U.S.'s tactical nukes in
Europe.Over 20 years after retiring most of its tactical nuclear weapons in the
aftermath of the Cold War, the United States still maintains a small arsenal of
tactical nuclear bombs in Europe. In the article, Rumbaugh and Blechman examine
the weapons' obsolete military mission, diminishing political value within NATO, and
skyrocketing modernization costs. They make the case that, barring any major
buy-in by European allies, the US should phase out its tactical nukes by cancelling
plans to modernize these weapons and to make the F-35 capable of delivering
them. Read it here.


Register at ForeignPolicy.com to receive Situation Report and other FP
newsletters.